Percival wrote:Alice, what I said was NOT hate, I do not hate Muslims are Arab folk, what I said was true and you know it is, when a Muslim is fighting Jihad they are allowed to blend in and do things that they are forbidden to do otherwise.
Bull. What on earth is the "law of Jihad" that you referred to in the other thread? The word jihad means "struggle" in Arabic -- in Islamic religious terms, this can be defined as a spiritual struggle within the individual to be a better person and become closer to God, or a worldly struggle by the downtrodden against their oppressors, both of which are encouraged by Islam. There is no such thing as the "law of jihad", only Sharia, the highest authority of which is the Quran.
To
quote myself from an earlier thread (since I see no need to research the same thing all over again):
Shari'a NEVER, under no circumstances, permits the murder of women or children, and forbids initiating aggression. ...
“God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just!
God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.”
Abu Bakr al Siddiq, the Prophet Mohammad's father-in-law, closest Companion and administrator of the political affairs of the earliest Muslims, issued this famous decree to his top military commander:
“I prescribe ten commandments to you: do not kill a woman, a child, or an old man, do not cut down fruitful trees, do not destroy inhabited areas, do not slaughter any sheep, cow or camel except for food, do not burn date palms, nor inundate them, do not embezzle, nor be guilty of cowardliness.”
The Qur'an's proscription against initiating aggression also applies to pagans and idolators:
If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
Just as genuine Christianity (the parts of the New Testament that are in red) is useless as a tool of oppression, genuine Islam (the Qur'an and Sunna) is actually a subversive religion in the most positive sense of the term, both being based on the principle that God created all human beings equal, with equal rights to justice and freedom, and equal obligations to be just and merciful to others, and to be life-long seekers of the divine. Human beings are to be judged and dealt with, not according to which tribe they belong to, or their race, but according to each individual's behavior towards others.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the central tenets of the Qur'an is the oft-repeated prohibition of any type of aggression, against anyone. Fighting is permitted only against invaders and those who initiate hostilities, and those who would oppress Muslims and prevent them from practicing their faith. But the Qur'an also states:
And fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except against those who practise oppression.
It may be that God will grant love and friendship between you and those whom you now hold as enemies. For God has power over all things; and God is oft-forgiving, most Merciful.
As for your "hate", would you not define it as "hate" if I were to cite specific instances of Jewish scriptures advocating aggression and violence against even women and children, even babies, for the purpose of taking their land and property? Would you find it hateful of me to attribute the very well-documented sadism and greed of the zionist colonists in Palestine to the Jewish faith? Especially given how many of them are "religious" settlers and given the state's employment of rabbis to incite occupation soldiers to "show no mercy" during last year's mass slaughter in Gaza, for instance, or (to quote from the same thread):
Akiva Eldar / U.S. tax dollars fund rabbi who excused killing gentile babiesWould it be hateful of me to point out, not with made-up stuff from dubious or nonexistent sources, like you do, but based on solid information, including Israeli state-sponsored religious authorities quoted by establishment Israeli newspapers, that the racist atrocities and war crimes committed by the troops of the illegal occupying army in Palestine are perfectly consistent with the Jewish scriptures? I would say that yes, it would be hateful of me to do that, if by focusing on the religious faith and not the actions of individuals, my purpose is to criminalize people for their beliefs and justifying the denial of their human and legal rights, as you are.
The question I'd like you to answer is, why do you not believe it is hateful when you justify Israeli crimes against Palestinians by citing "the law of Jihad" (whatever that is)? Would you be prepared to have the same standards applied to those who share your own religious identity? Inquiring minds want to know.
Percival wrote:You are not going to get far with me because I have lived in the region and I worked as a journalist and I have spoken to Hamas militants myself and been told as much AND heard them admit to me that their ultimate goal is to EXTERMINATE EVERY JEW IN THE REGION, if these are the sort of people you wish to defend...well ok, but I will not.
You will get much less far with me, because I LIVE in the region and speak the language and have been all over Palestine and known and worked for several years with many Palestinians from across the political, ideological and religious spectrum and swear, SWEAR ON THE LIFE OF MY CHILDREN that I have NEVER, EVER heard anyone, Muslim or otherwise, say to me that they would approve of "killing every Jew in the region" or anything vaguely resembling that sick fabrication of the sick zionist mind, let alone that this is "their ultimate goal". In contrast to, say, Judaism, no respectable Muslim cleric or other scholar could ever get away with calling for the the murder of women and children, let alone the extermination of any people, let alone Jews or Christians, whom Muslims consider fellow "People of the Book" and worshipers of the same God.
That might explain why zionists like you are so often forced to rely on wholesale fabrications, cynical mistranslations from Israeli intelligence-linked sources like MEMRI and dubious hearsay to feed their agitprop needs, in contrast to the numerous calls by prominent and state-sanctioned rabbis for
racist murder and even genocide, which are well-documented from their own sources and easily verifiable.
As for you being a journalist, the quality of your contributions here bear witness to the kind of "journalist" you were, if indeed you were. Nothing would surprise me, especially given the zionist predilection for confusing their own self-serving fabrications with reality. (ref. "A land without people for a people without land", "There are no Palestinians", "There is no occupation, only 'disputed territories', "There is no humanitarian calamity in Gaza", "Israeli troops take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties", "Israel is not a racist state", etc., etc.)
For the record, with much more sincerity than you, I solemnly affirm that I have no hatred in me or even prejudice against anyone because of their religious faith, regardless of what it is. Every religion has much that is valuable, in my opinion, but individuals take from their faith only what they are capable of taking.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
